Which is probably your point – that people hear differently, and react to that, plus the spin if they are low information. I’m just having a hard time believing that there are that many Democrats (not independents, not unaffiliated, but Democrats) that won’t vote for the democrat, as you seem to be asserting.

Its not just what I hear as “me”, its understanding how other people hear stuff.

I mean, I know exactly what Obama was talking about with “bitter/cling” and “losing your dignity”, because I’ve taken sociology in college too. (and btw, Obama needs to go back to class, because the things that these working class people “cling” to are coping mechanisms which help them maintain their dignity — and that includes not just “guns and god”, but the prejudice that Obama included with “guns and god”.)

I haven’t heard that from him – I heard him say (rightly, I believe) that the idea won’t do what they tell you it will do, it won’t benefit consumers, and it will do it at the expense of our infrastructure. I didn’t take that to mean people were “stupid” because they want lower gas prices.

And what I heard was completely different — because I know that Clinton never claimed that the gas tax holdiay would result in a reduction at the pump of 18.4 cents per gallon the moment it was implemented, know that in Illinois, the gas tax holiday did benefit consumers — reducing pump prices by 3% to 4%, and that the infrastructure argument is complete bullshit, because Clinton’s plan was contingent upon making up lost revenue to the trust fund, most likely through a windfall profits tax. And because I want Clinton to be correct, I know all this stuff because anything that confirms what you want to think is learned much more easily than stuff that contradict what you want to think. And all that working class voters need to know is one of these three things that contradicts what you heard from Obama to completely reject his argument.

So what the people whom Clinton’s proposal was aimed at heard something completely different — this was something they thought was a good idea, and Obama chose to attack Clinton on this issue, and to accuse her of “pandering” on it. Working class people know that politicians all pander to various constituencies — its what makes them politician, and when Obama suddenly decided to attack Clinton for “pandering” to working class voters by saying that Clinton’s proposal made no sense (i.e. that working class people were stupid for wanting it), the question becomes “why is Obama singling US out?

And I don’t want to sound condescending, but I really do hope you can find a downticket candidate who can engage your passion.

well, if you can find me a 24 year old blond lifeguard whose running for office in Philadelphia, I’m sure I can get “engaged” ;-)

Thanks for answering the question.

For the last eight years, Hillary Clinton has been running for President (not the Democratic nomination, but running for the White House) under the premise that Bill Clinton had figured out a way for a Democrat to win, and that the best way to guarantee success in November is to make sure that you are positioned to get the same voters that Bill Clinton got.

Fair enough. I’m not sure it works in 2008, for a couple of reasons – the country is in a much different place (war and economy) than in 92, and although Ron Paul has the potential to be a Perot-type spoiler, I don’t see that happening unless he launches the independent run. I’m also not sure how that scenario accounts for the potential “new” voters that have been brought into this process, but I’ll accept what you’re saying. It worked before. It has a proven record.

But there is a new, more pernicious dynamic at work now that can best be described as Obama telling working class people that they are stupid for wanting a gas tax holiday. The gas tax holiday isn’t about saving people $30 over the summer — its about acknowledging and addressing the concerns and anxieties of people who don’t feel economically secure. Its about driving your pick-up truck to work, and being reminded a dozen or more times as you pass gas stations on the way that you can’t afford to fill your tank this week because the electric bill is due, and your checking account balance is low. And its about signalling to people that “washington” understands and cares about their anxieties, and that the political leadership will do what they can.

I haven’t heard that from him – I heard him say (rightly, I believe) that the idea won’t do what they tell you it will do, it won’t benefit consumers, and it will do it at the expense of our infrastructure. I didn’t take that to mean people were “stupid” because they want lower gas prices. Doesn’t matter, though, I don’t want to argue about that.

I think in many ways we see what we want to see in the candidates, and you and I see the both of them differently. Because I hear Obama saying he IS concerned about people’s anxieties, but you don’t. You have concerns about his character, I don’t (yet.)

Which is probably your point – that people hear differently, and react to that, plus the spin if they are low information. I’m just having a hard time believing that there are that many Democrats (not independents, not unaffiliated, but Democrats) that won’t vote for the democrat, as you seem to be asserting.

I personally have an issue with this approach, because I think what you are really saying is you have to out-Republican the Republicans, and I haven’t seen that work for us. What is the saying? Give them the choice between a Republican and Republican lite and they’ll pick the real thing? But I recognize it is a complex situation.

Anyway, thanks again for answering the question. And I don’t want to sound condescending, but I really do hope you can find a downticket candidate who can engage your passion.

the charge of sexism was not directed only at me – it was a most definitely plural “people.”

selise, if this is about “irrational” that has been dealt with. If its about “good reasons” that has been dealt with.

And btw, I’m not running for president, and I’m not trying to win the democratic nomination based on false charges of racism aimed at my opponent. I called out a few Obots on their projecting their own sexism on the research that I’d done — assuming that I was calling all Obama supporters sexist, when all I was doing was pointing out that there was evidence of sexism found within a portion of the male supporters of Obama — and it was specifically not about anyone who would support both Clinton and Obama if either was the nominee.

And lets get serious for a moment. You want to tell me that someone is genuinely interested in seeing if my conclusion stand up to scrutiny, when they praise to high heaven an entire book whose premise is based on 34 poll responses conducted in two cities? I mean, don’t tell me that isn’t the apex of intellectual dishonesty.

And then, if it is, can you explain to me why you think that white voters who voted for Clinton in various primaries, who were engaged enough to participate in the Democratic primary process, would then vote Republican?

This is the part I don’t understand. I understand there are some who won’t, but I don’t understand why it will be in large enough numbers to give McCain a win? Are there really that many independents participating in the Democratic Party’s primary process who will refuse to vote for the Democrat?

I think there are two different but related issues here.

For the last eight yeras, Hillary Clinton has been running for President (not the Democratic nomination, but running for the White House) under the premise that Bill Clinton had figured out a way for a Democrat to win, and that the best way to guarantee success in November is to make sure that you are positioned to get the same voters that Bill Clinton got.

She “fits” what the Bill Clinton coalition wants in a president. And while neither McCain nor Obama really ‘fit’, McCain is better positioned to appeal to those voters that have no problem voting for Republicans, even if they prefer a democrat on general principle. I mean, why do you think so many heavily “democratic” states have or recently had Republican governors? Its because there are lots of registered Democrats who prefer the PARTY to the GOP, but vote for the person. Obama doesn’t connect with the working class on that level — his understanding of the working class is that of someone who took a college sociology course on the subject. (that’s where “bitter/cling” and “lose your dignity” come from — its an academic perspective on working class people).

If it was just a question of not connecting, Obama would still have a shot a those voters — were it not for the fact that he is a virtual unknown quantity whose past leaves him extremely vulnerable to right wing smears.
And that’s why I think IN GENERAL that Obama couldn’t win in November.

But there is a new, more pernicious dynamic at work now that can best be described as Obama telling working class people that they are stupid for wanting a gas tax holiday. The gas tax holiday isn’t about saving people $30 over the summer — its about acknowledging and addressing the concerns and anxieties of people who don’t feel economically secure. Its about driving your pick-up truck to work, and being reminded a dozen or more times as you pass gas stations on the way that you can’t afford to fill your tank this week because the electric bill is due, and your checking account balance is low. And its about signalling to people that “washington” understands and cares about their anxieties, and that the political leadership will do what they can.

You top that off with the ever-present “the Democratic Party has to nominate Obama in order to not alienate black voters”, and the apparent complete lack of concern of African American voters on the serious questions that have been raised about who Barack Obama really is and what he really stands for, and you have a whole LOT of voters who are getting the message “the Democratic Party doesn’t care about you, doesn’t worry about what you worry about, and doesn’t care that you have concerns about Barack Obama’s character”.

Its the kind of response from the Democrats that guarantees that these voters will vote against their own “economic self interest”, because the GOP is more than happy to pander to them.

That said, a substantial number of voters in the Democratic primary won’t vote for Obama. But they wouldn’t vote for Hillary either.

Really? Because they are playing Limbaugh’s game?

This is the part I’m finding hard to believe. That there are THAT MANY people participating in the PRIMARY that really, really want to vote for McCain?

The NY Times ran an article last Saturday (5/3) which stated that according to their polls Obama and Clinton more or less split this Repub vote. I do not believe that for a minute. Someone who crosses over to screw things up cannot be depended upon to come clean even to so august a publication as the NY Times.

That said, a substantial number of voters in the Democratic primary won’t vote for Obama. But they wouldn’t vote for Hillary either. I might add, that by November things may be so bad that even a racist might feel compelled to vote for the black guy.

selise, if you will recall, the whole “irrational” thing was a discussion I had specifically with you here one night, in which I’d misread your intention with regard to something you’d written, and subsequently acknowledged the error and apologized. IIRC, there was no plural “you” involved in that aspect of the discussion, it was just you and me. And when I realized that I’d misread your intent, I admitted it.

the charge of sexism was not directed only at me – it was a most definitely plural “people.”

The most disturbing thing about this whole experience is that the people who are giving me the hardest time are the same people who would have no problem acknowledge that sexism and misogyny are still factors in the daily lives of women — they only dispute it when it comes to why they don’t like Hillary Clinton, because they don’t want to deal with the fact that they have absorbed the misogyny directed at Clinton into their own psyches.

you did apologize to me, but for being a jerk – not for misreading my intent. i appreciate that you did so and consider it water under the bridge. however, i thought you owed everyone on that thread an apology – not just me – which is why i bring it up now.

to make matters worse, then you went back to correntewire and wrote a post that reflected on your time here where you said, among other things:

Even when no one is discussing the relative merits of Obama or Clinton, the minute gender issues are raised, Obama supporters feel compelled to justify that support. Moreover, even when it is explained to them that you are not talking about them, they still don’t get it. They continue to insist upon trashing Clinton, and will even do so in an unmistakably sexist manner (as in the old “she only got where she is because of who she is married to” trope.)

After spending a couple of hours a day for the last six days watching this happen, I’ve come up with a theory. This has nothing to do with gender related issues, and its not a denial of sexism, or a rejection of feminism as a progressive value. And what appears to be unwarranted defensiveness and paranoia isn’t. Those are just the “adult” manifestations of an Infantile Id being denied what it wants.

and this:

The last thing that Obama supporters want is for people to start thinking seriously about how he really got where he is, and what that means for November. Raising “gender” issues is a threat to them, because it means that people might start thinking about how dependent upon the “Hillary-hatred” that springs from sexism and misogyny Obama’s “success” really is – and it they start thinking about that, they’ll start thinking about everything else.

So when the subject of gender issues is raised, it must be changed, and the messenger attacked. It’s the reaction of the infantile Id to the certain knowledge that it will be told “no.” They want their Obama, not a Clinton or a McCain, and just like an infant that is being denied, they are going to make everyone’s life a living hell unless and until they get what they want, or they run out of energy and finally fall asleep.

This pretty much explains everything that has been happening since March 4. The pressure on Clinton to quit – and the failure of the super-delegates to rally around Obama (they can read exit polls too.) The biliousness of the attacks on Clinton for supposedly “using Republican talking points” against Obama. And the outrage that has accompanied coverage of Obama’s “bitter/clinging” remarks has been especially telling.

which brings me back to my question @256 upthread when you write:

Objecting to painting the Clintons as racists isn’t ‘idealism’, its simply a matter of having some core principles.

how exactly do you square that with calling a bunch of us sexist?

and p.s. i do not withdraw my charge of bullshit. the issue of “good reasons” was a fiction and a distraction.

Are you talking about the aesthetic appearance of your voting record? Is it on display somewhere?